TA5-01838

TA5-01838

Adverse credibility findings based on multiple inconsistencies and omissions, lack of corroboration and implausibility, combined with failure to establish nexus to a Convention ground and failure to rebut availability of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, lead to conclusion that claimants do not have a well‑founded fear of persecution and are not persons in need of protection; claims dismissed.

Citation
TA5-01838
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX; Adjudicator: Steve Ellis; Refugee Protection Officer: R. Gould; Designated Representative: XXXXX; Respondent Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, Port of Entry, Personal Information Form, Sojourning, Asylum in Third Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Credibility State Protection Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear Particular Social Group +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Steve Ellis

Adjudicator

R. Gould

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Respondent Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are credible and trustworthy witnesses
  2. 2 Whether there is a nexus between claimed harm and a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Indonesia is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Adverse credibility findings based on multiple inconsistencies and omissions, lack of corroboration and implausibility, combined with failure to establish nexus to a Convention ground and failure to rebut availability of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, lead to conclusion that claimants do not have a well‑founded fear of persecution and are not persons in need of protection; claims dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Decision negative; protection denied